These are the kind of projects we need to get the economy going. The construction industry is experiencing 16%+ unemployment right now, we don't make much anymore so we better build. If you put $$ in construction workers pockets, they spend it. WAGES drive demand and DEMAND drives the economy. Look @ Eisenhower and the interstate highway system, the biggest public works project since the depression. Pay down the debt from ww2, and opened up commerce all over hell and now we're to cheap to maintain it. A damn shame it is.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.

Sadly though, no matter how good an idea replacing America's deteriorating infrastructure might be, since if was proposed by a Democratic administration, it'll never get through a Republican house whose newfound priority is reducing the debt (but only as long as there aren't any funding emergencies in their own districts.)

Even sadder is the reality that if the political balance of power were reversed, the same would also be true.

Sadly though, no matter how good an idea replacing America's deteriorating infrastructure might be, since if was proposed by a Democratic administration, it'll never get through a Republican house whose newfound priority is reducing the debt (but only as long as there aren't any funding emergencies in their own districts.)

Even sadder is the reality that if the political balance of power were reversed, the same would also be true.

K

Click to expand...

You're exactly right, the Democrats labeled themselves as born-again fiscal conservatives championing the days of budget surpluses just a decade ago when you know who was President. But they weren't the least bit bashful in creating new spending burdens for the country when they entirely controlled Congress & WH here a couple years back. But this matter doesn't have to be an either/or one either. Our runway debt problem must be dealt with, the sooner the better, but not all at once either. One side wants to go nearly full bore on it and the other continues along like it's not a problem at all. Funding infrastructure should be a national priority but I'm personally not for pilling on even more debt to fund it. Priorities must be made. What we don't need to do is to target another nearly a trillion dollars of mostly borrowed money for allegedly shovel ready infrastructure jobs and then turn around and spend it elsewhere.

The debt is a strawman that the right uses to keep our attention while the banks & wall street are pickin our pockets. The debt to GDP ratio was much higher comming out of ww2, we didn't cut our way to prosperity then and we won't now.The debt must be addressed, but not by austerity. WE are the job creators, it's our blood, sweat and tears that make this country go, not banksters, wall street or polititians.

Lets not forget that Clinton left the deficit and debt in much better shape than he found it, and it was after W. that we are in this hole. Why? Two longest wars that this country has ever fought. Afghanistan was for 9/11 and going to get bin laden, so I understand, but Iraq was a waste of money, a lot of money. Stories of the CIA running around with bags of cash to hand out, all because we didn't plan for what happens when Saddam falls, well it really pisses me off.

Anyone telling you one party is for fiscal conservatism and another is for free spending is just not paying attention. They both want to spend, Republicans on tax breaks for wealthy and corporations, and for their pet theory on foreign policy. Democrats are for spending on domestic and poor. Of the two, I'd rather see money spent on stuff like infrastructure that can save us time, and lives.

I know we're not supposed to talk politics here, but I'll just point out that it's really good to read some political-economic comments here that are clear-headed and recognize that both parties have warped agendas. There was a time here on WFF when these discussions would go into quite partisan directions, and it bummed me out to see so many people falling for either party's snow jobs and quoting MSNBC and Fox News talking points like scripture.

The hard fact is that both parties and the system they operate in primarily work to get politicians re-elected and large re-election campaign funders' interests entrenched further. Each party devotes enormous energy to defeating the other party, rather than toward solving the big common problems facing this country. This is true at every level of elected politics in nearly every locale. Anyone who professes otherwise is simply ignoring (or ignorant of) reality.

I know we're not supposed to talk politics here, but I'll just point out that it's really good to read some political-economic comments here that are clear-headed and recognize that both parties have warped agendas. There was a time here on WFF when these discussions would go into quite partisan directions, and it bummed me out to see so many people falling for either party's snow jobs and quoting MSNBC and Fox News talking points like scripture.

The hard fact is that both parties and the system they operate in primarily work to get politicians re-elected and large re-election campaign funders' interests entrenched further. Each party devotes enormous energy to defeating the other party, rather than toward solving the big common problems facing this country. This is true at every level of elected politics in nearly every locale. Anyone who professes otherwise is simply ignoring (or ignorant of) reality.

Click to expand...

If this be the case( and I believe it is), then we MUST take money out of politics or we will continue to spiral toward a third world economy.

This certainly looks like a "shovel ready job"... it will be interesting to see if there is action behind all the campaign promises. Hopefully not all of the stimulus funds have been pissed away yet and some can be directed to this. Lugan, much as it pains me to say it, is spot on...way too much energy and resources spent assuring survival of a political party...we really need to find someone who can find middle ground.

I'd love to spend more time reading this threads twists and turns, but the sun is shining here in Hardin, MT and the Bighorn beckons.

Welllll......... if they don't simply patch the damage... which is what I believe they'll do... they can always build a toll bridge to pay for the sucker. No tax increase. So, no politics involved, but I bet citizens would still toss a tissy fit... even those who don't want to pay taxes.

Just the beginning of falling bridges. They didn't build them to last forever and they aren't. Like it or not, sooner or later you will need to start paying for new bridges one way or the other. Of course I never use that bridge so I don't want MY taxes going up

The words below were written in 1984 but could have been written yesterday. 'bout all that needs to be said on politics in the United States.

By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Army & Marines are in a foreign country it's because they want them in a foreign country ...
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Well, I for one, do not encourage our DOT brethern to spend our money on make work projects, and I feel we have enough legitimate projects to take care of all of the man hours that they can come up with. But consider all of the bridges that you cross each day.
Most are older than a large precentage of the drivers that use them.
A lot of our major freeway systems were designed and built in the 1950s. They are not going to last forever. At the cost of highway construction per mile, perhaps it is time that we took a real and
honest look at public transportation as a means of getting from point A to point B.

I for one, find it interesting to read about some of the gentlemen of an earlier era, taking a train to a local fishing mecca, because automobiles were not available.

The automobile industry has served us well in the past, but really, do we need all of the vehicles that we find in our lives. We drive a block to get a bottle of milk?

I am as guilty of being an urban driver, but I think, we, as a whole, could do better.

I do think about this matter when ever I drive over a bridge. Even the new ones. But, I guess life is a crap shoot.

Lets not forget that Clinton left the deficit and debt in much better shape than he found it, and it was after W. that we are in this hole. Why? Two longest wars that this country has ever fought. Afghanistan was for 9/11 and going to get bin laden, so I understand, but Iraq was a waste of money, a lot of money. Stories of the CIA running around with bags of cash to hand out, all because we didn't plan for what happens when Saddam falls, well it really pisses me off.

Anyone telling you one party is for fiscal conservatism and another is for free spending is just not paying attention. They both want to spend, Republicans on tax breaks for wealthy and corporations, and for their pet theory on foreign policy. Democrats are for spending on domestic and poor. Of the two, I'd rather see money spent on stuff like infrastructure that can save us time, and lives.

Click to expand...

Let's also be a little fair here too. If it weren't for the Republican landslide victories in 1994, there is no way that those budget surplus would have occurred. They forced Clinton and I mean forced Clinton into many things he wouldn't have done otherwise. But I give credit to Clinton to be smart enough to play along and things turned out pretty good. Not much of that happening in WASHDC these days. But Clinton was also the benefactor of receiving a very strong economy when he took the reigns and a peace dividend from the Cold War ending that resulted in a huge reduction in defense spending. Also Clinton could have continued as President in 2001 and that brief surplus would have been gone just as fast as a result of the dot.com bust and the accompanying Recession. And as far as Bush is concerned, his compassionate conservative mantra is what got him into trouble. In trying to get along with the Democrats, who trashed him anyway, he increase govt programs without paying for them. Then the wheels really fell off his last two years when the Democrats ran the House and Senate. Blame Bush for not vetoing more but it took two to tango here. But to Bush's credit he tried to correct the mortgage problem and other substantial matters only to be pistol whipped by the Democrats as he had no significant majorities to do anything at the time.